July 14, 2011

The Two Party System is Not Working

"As Republicans and Democrats grapple over spending caps and tax structures, and as our national legislature stays virtually locked-up with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, it’s worth wondering how we got here. The United States is one of a bare handful of countries across the world that uses a two-party system of government. Third parties are typically repressed in such an environment and, indeed, members of either or the two parties in the United States serve as the overwhelming majority of elected officials at all levels of government.

"The voting system that the United States uses for legislative districts - as well as the Electoral College system for Presidential elections -encourages a two-party system. This voting system, called often called “winner-take-all”, means that in each election in each district, the winner of the election will win the seat. It seems simple and intuitive, but many other countries do things slightly differently. Proportional representation is often used as a voting system in countries with multi-party systems. Simply put, these seats are filled according to the percentage of the vote that each party received. To illustrate the difference, say that a party wins 15% of the national vote but won no seats in individual elections. Under the American “winner-take-all” system, that party would receive no seats in the legislature. In a proportional representation jurisdiction, however, that party would receive 15% of the seats. Countries that employ some proportional representation sometimes have a certain quantity of legislative seats set aside to be filled in this way in addition to those seats assigned to geographical districts, whose winners will fill the seat. Our Electoral College system, likewise, is a winner-take-all system. Winners of the plurality of the votes in each state win all of a state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska split electoral votes according to proportional voting. This environment teaches voters that votes for third parties are often “wasted”, and it teaches third parties that they must fuse to have any hope of promoting an alternative to either of the dominant parties.

"Disadvantages to two-party systems are obvious. The system bars fringe, extremist and issue parties from winning seats and therefore wielding influence. It also discourages cooperation between the two dominant parties. In a multi-party system, parties often have to form “coalition governments” - alliances with other parties which, in exchange, allow the agendas of the smaller parties into the majority. The system does have its advantages, however. It promotes centrism and discourages extremism. In order to appeal to a wide-enough swath of the electorate, the parties must be moderate. It also promotes political stability which is often an indicator of economic growth. By contrast, multi-party systems can go months or even longer with no government in power due to disagreements and fractures among the parties. This instability has notably plagued Italy for much of its modern history.

"The United States has been a two-party system for most of its history. Today’s Democrats trace their founding to Andrew Jackson and the ashes of the early Democratic-Republican Party in the 1830’s. Their primary foes were first the now-defunct Whig Party and later the emergent Republican Party. Somewhat strangely, they were very weak in populous New England but very strong on the frontier and in the mid-Atlantic states. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to combat the expansion of slavery into the territories and was, perhaps consequently, strong in the North and very weak in the South. One founding father - George Washington - who was venerated for his wisdom and leadership as well as the examples he set, warned of the insidious influence of political parties in his farewell address, and charged the United States to avoid them, saying

“ 'There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.' ”

"Despite his best efforts, however, the United States has largely institutionalized its two-party system. Despite recent third party relative successes, such as Ross Perot in the 1990’s, the chances of sweeping change remain remote."

The following is my rebuttal:

The article states:

"The system bars fringe, extremist and issue parties from winning seats and therefore wielding influence. ... In order to appeal to a wide-enough swath of the electorate, the parties must be moderate. "

This is not true if one of the parties becomes an extremist party in and of itself.

Right now the two party system is not working. Far from coming to some kind of compromise between the two parties leading to a "centrist" government policy, the Republicans are going to the rightward extreme and then holding the Democrats hostage to their position. There is nothing inherent in the two party system that leads to compromise. Republicans have shown that they can prevent any excercise of legitimate government functions even if they are in the minority by using the filibuster. They can filibuster every federal judiciary appointment and even every appointment to head an agency as they've prevented Elizabeth Warren from heading the Consumer Financial Protection Commission. They can literally bring government to a standstill and even destroy the US if they so choose by not raising the debt ceiling. They have threatened to do all of this if they don't get totally their own way. Thus the two party system is fatally flawed.

Their sole goal is to get rid of Obama in the 2012 election, and they are not willing to do anything even if it is beneficial to the American people, even if polling shows 80% of the American people would prefer it, that gets in the way of defeating Obama. Their sole aim is to prove that Obama is ineffective and can't get anything done. Such a system of government cannot last. If the Republicans take the White House in 2012, they will have achieved their goal, and, if they then start passing some legislation that would benefit the American people, the public will think that Republicans know how to get things done while Democrats don't. The only reason they might be able to get some things done is that Democrats won't filibuster every piece of legislation that might benefit the American people just for political advantage because some of them still care about the American people.

However, since the Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of large corporations and the wealthy, the chances of their passing much in the way of legislation that would benefit the middle class is nil. Instead once they get their hands on all the levers of power, the US will go the way of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, NJ and other states where Republicans control all three branches of state government: privatizing public institutions including Social Security and Medicare, deunionizing, demonizing government workers, lowering taxes especially on the rich and corporations, cutting spending including unemployment insurance, welfare and the safety net in general. Then Democrats will have no choice except to filibuster all proposed Republican legislation. However, Republicans might throw a few crumbs to the poor and middle class all of which Democrats will heartily endorse because they are not as totally heartless as Republicans.

Comments

"As Republicans and Democrats grapple over spending caps and tax structures, and as our national legislature stays virtually locked-up with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, it’s worth wondering how we got here. The United States is one of a bare handful of countries across the world that uses a two-party system of government. Third parties are typically repressed in such an environment and, indeed, members of either or the two parties in the United States serve as the overwhelming majority of elected officials at all levels of government.

"The voting system that the United States uses for legislative districts - as well as the Electoral College system for Presidential elections -encourages a two-party system. This voting system, called often called “winner-take-all”, means that in each election in each district, the winner of the election will win the seat. It seems simple and intuitive, but many other countries do things slightly differently. Proportional representation is often used as a voting system in countries with multi-party systems. Simply put, these seats are filled according to the percentage of the vote that each party received. To illustrate the difference, say that a party wins 15% of the national vote but won no seats in individual elections. Under the American “winner-take-all” system, that party would receive no seats in the legislature. In a proportional representation jurisdiction, however, that party would receive 15% of the seats. Countries that employ some proportional representation sometimes have a certain quantity of legislative seats set aside to be filled in this way in addition to those seats assigned to geographical districts, whose winners will fill the seat. Our Electoral College system, likewise, is a winner-take-all system. Winners of the plurality of the votes in each state win all of a state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska split electoral votes according to proportional voting. This environment teaches voters that votes for third parties are often “wasted”, and it teaches third parties that they must fuse to have any hope of promoting an alternative to either of the dominant parties.

"Disadvantages to two-party systems are obvious. The system bars fringe, extremist and issue parties from winning seats and therefore wielding influence. It also discourages cooperation between the two dominant parties. In a multi-party system, parties often have to form “coalition governments” - alliances with other parties which, in exchange, allow the agendas of the smaller parties into the majority. The system does have its advantages, however. It promotes centrism and discourages extremism. In order to appeal to a wide-enough swath of the electorate, the parties must be moderate. It also promotes political stability which is often an indicator of economic growth. By contrast, multi-party systems can go months or even longer with no government in power due to disagreements and fractures among the parties. This instability has notably plagued Italy for much of its modern history.

"The United States has been a two-party system for most of its history. Today’s Democrats trace their founding to Andrew Jackson and the ashes of the early Democratic-Republican Party in the 1830’s. Their primary foes were first the now-defunct Whig Party and later the emergent Republican Party. Somewhat strangely, they were very weak in populous New England but very strong on the frontier and in the mid-Atlantic states. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to combat the expansion of slavery into the territories and was, perhaps consequently, strong in the North and very weak in the South. One founding father - George Washington - who was venerated for his wisdom and leadership as well as the examples he set, warned of the insidious influence of political parties in his farewell address, and charged the United States to avoid them, saying

“ 'There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.' ”

"Despite his best efforts, however, the United States has largely institutionalized its two-party system. Despite recent third party relative successes, such as Ross Perot in the 1990’s, the chances of sweeping change remain remote."

The following is my rebuttal:

The article states:

"The system bars fringe, extremist and issue parties from winning seats and therefore wielding influence. ... In order to appeal to a wide-enough swath of the electorate, the parties must be moderate. "

This is not true if one of the parties becomes an extremist party in and of itself.

Right now the two party system is not working. Far from coming to some kind of compromise between the two parties leading to a "centrist" government policy, the Republicans are going to the rightward extreme and then holding the Democrats hostage to their position. There is nothing inherent in the two party system that leads to compromise. Republicans have shown that they can prevent any excercise of legitimate government functions even if they are in the minority by using the filibuster. They can filibuster every federal judiciary appointment and even every appointment to head an agency as they've prevented Elizabeth Warren from heading the Consumer Financial Protection Commission. They can literally bring government to a standstill and even destroy the US if they so choose by not raising the debt ceiling. They have threatened to do all of this if they don't get totally their own way. Thus the two party system is fatally flawed.

Their sole goal is to get rid of Obama in the 2012 election, and they are not willing to do anything even if it is beneficial to the American people, even if polling shows 80% of the American people would prefer it, that gets in the way of defeating Obama. Their sole aim is to prove that Obama is ineffective and can't get anything done. Such a system of government cannot last. If the Republicans take the White House in 2012, they will have achieved their goal, and, if they then start passing some legislation that would benefit the American people, the public will think that Republicans know how to get things done while Democrats don't. The only reason they might be able to get some things done is that Democrats won't filibuster every piece of legislation that might benefit the American people just for political advantage because some of them still care about the American people.

However, since the Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of large corporations and the wealthy, the chances of their passing much in the way of legislation that would benefit the middle class is nil. Instead once they get their hands on all the levers of power, the US will go the way of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, NJ and other states where Republicans control all three branches of state government: privatizing public institutions including Social Security and Medicare, deunionizing, demonizing government workers, lowering taxes especially on the rich and corporations, cutting spending including unemployment insurance, welfare and the safety net in general. Then Democrats will have no choice except to filibuster all proposed Republican legislation. However, Republicans might throw a few crumbs to the poor and middle class all of which Democrats will heartily endorse because they are not as totally heartless as Republicans.